1.     This revision petition under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, ‘the Act’) assails the order dated 29.12.2016 by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal no.1665 of 2015 which was disposed of in FA no.1676 of 2014 (counter appeal) filed by the present respondent upholding the order dated 18.11.2014 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar in CC no. 95 of 2012.

2.     In brief, the relevant facts are that the petitioner provided a cash credit limit of Rs.2.00 lakh which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.7.00 lakh to the respondent who was running a proprietorship concern, M/s Kumar Trading Company. An insurance cover was issued by respondent no.2 for a sum of Rs.10 lakh for a premium which was debited from the account of respondent no.1 by the petitioner. The policy was taken on 05.05.2010 and was valid for the period 06.05.2010 to 05.05.2011. On the intervening night of 20/21.10.2010 there was a theft in the shop of the respondent and costly mobile phones, accessories, sim cards etc., in which the respondent dealt, were found missing. FIR no.157 dated 29.10.2010 was lodged in the Police Station division No.1, Jalandhar and respondent no.2 was informed who deputed a surveyor to assess the loss. The claim of respondent no.1 for a sum of Rs.10 lakh was repudiated by respondent no.2 on the ground that the insurance cover extended only to “all kinds of stationery goods, gifts items and such other items pertaining to the insured trade stored at the above shop” whereas at the time of the theft the complainant was engaged in the business to sell, repair and recharge of mobile hand sets and the subject matter under the policy was different to the loss that has been reported. After obtaining surveyor’s report under RTI, respondent no.1 issued a legal notice to respondent no.2 and after failing to receive a reply, approached the District Forum which ordered in his favour and directed payment of Rs.10 lakh with 9% interest from the date of filing of the complaint till payment along with Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses.

3.     The appeal against this order was dismissed by the State Commission which held that respondent/ complainant was a consumer qua the petitioner and the insurance company and that the insurance cover was taken by the present petitioner and therefore, any deficiency in service constituted a deficiency qua the respondent no.1. In view of the fact that the insurance services were availed not for commercial purpose but because insurance was for indemnification for future loss and the insurance policy was not taken for making profit, it was held that the insurance cover “on stock of all kinds of stationery goods, Photostat machine, STD phone, mobile phone and such other goods pertaining to insured’s trade whilst lying stored at above address”. The order noted that the renewal of the policy in 2009-2010 had enhanced the coverage to Rs.16 lakh but was subsequently reduced to Rs.10 lakh and its coverage was for all kinds of stationery goods/ gift items and all such items. The State Commission concluded that the actual loss amounting to Rs.13,45,500/- and that there was deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner in reducing the amount of insurance and not covering the mobile set and accessories for which reasons it found no reason to differ with the findings of the District Forum.

4.     I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records carefully.

5.     It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the orders of the lower fora were flawed since coverage of the policy pertaining only to the stationery goods and gift times and not for mobile hand set, accessories etc. It was therefore, argued that the orders of the lower fora were erroneous and that the revision petition be allowed.

6.     Learned counsel for respondent no.1 states that this Commission on 04.01.2016 in RP no.2524 of 2015 directed the counsel for the petitioner to produce on record the original proposal form/ request for insurance of the subject premises with effect from 28.03.2005. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 states that direction no.3 was not made since this Commission remanded the revision petition to State Commission, Punjab to pass a fresh, composite order. The Vacation Judge on 02.06.2017 passed an order whereby the petitioner bank was directed to file an affidavit of the concerned officer disclosing therein (i) who had filed the proposal form (ii) who had signed the proposal form, (iii) who had sent the proposal form to the insurer and also mentioned that counsel for the petitioner produced cover note as well as insurance policy received by the petitioner Bank from the insurance company. The compliance of this direction is still pending. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 filed a complaint no.75 of 2012 before the District Forum, Jalandhar and the complaint was accepted against the petitioner vide order dated 18.11.2014. Aggrieved by the order dated 18.11.2014 of the District Forum the petitioner filed FA No.1665 and 1676 of 2014 for enhancement of the awarded amount by the respondent no.1 before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the FA no.1665 of 2014 of the petitioner Bank on 12.08.2016, whereas FA no.1676 of 2014 was partly allowed on 18.11.2014 and modified the order of the District Forum by enhancing the amount from Rs.10 lakh to Rs.13 lakh and also enhanced the litigation expenses. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 states that the petitioner Bank filed two separate RPs no.1973 of 2016 against the order dated 14.03.2016 in FA No. 1676 of 2014 and another RP no.2524 of 2015 against FA no.1665 of 2014. However, both the revision petitions were remanded to the State Commission, Punjab vide order dated 09.12.2016 with the direction to pass a composite order in both the appeals.  Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present revision against the composite order dated 29.12.2016.

7.     Learned counsel for respondent no.1 submits that the District Forum has rightly and validly based its order dated 18.11.2014 on a correct analysis of facts and proper appreciation of evidence and documents and the same has been upheld by the State Commission also. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 stated that the renewal of the policy for which premium was deducted from the Bank Account of respondent no.1 – complainant and remitted to the insurer – respondent no.2  has been admitted by the petitioner Bank and also respondent no.2/ insurance company. Hence, he prays that the revision petition be dismissed and stay granted be vacated.

8.     Learned counsel for respondent no.2 states that the petitioner had taken a Shop Keepers Insurance Policy for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- for the period from 06.05.2010 to 05.05.2011. He submits that on the intervening night of 20/21.10.2010 a theft/ burglary occurred in the firm. An FIR was lodged with the police station on 21.10.2010. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 appointed Mr Rajesh Gupta as the surveyor who visited the place of incident on 11.11.2010 to assess the loss. Loss was estimated at  Rs.17,78,916/-. The insurance company, on the basis of the report received from the surveyor on 25.02.2011, intimated the complainant that claim was not payable under the terms and conditions of the policy and repudiated the claim. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 submitted that the surveyor has assessed the loss, and submitted his report on 20.01.2011 to the insurance company in which he recommended ‘No Claim’ as mobiles were not covered under the policy of insurance and the loss was out of the ambit of the policy as the stolen items were not covered under the policy. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 stated that as per the policy, the risk covered was all kinds of stationery goods, gift items and other items pertaining to the insured trade stored at the shop of the insured.

9.     Learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits that the insurance cover limit was reduced as per the instructions of the complainant. He further submits that the during this period the complainant did not intimate the respondent no.2 that the insurance cover was wrongly renewed and that the policy was for an higher amount. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 further states that the insurance policy was not taken for all the items in the stock of the complainant. The learned counsel for respondent no.2 states that the revision petition be dismissed being frivolous and vexatious.

10.   From the foregoing and the material on record, it is evident that the orders of the lower fora are concurrent on facts. The revision petitioner has not been able to establish any jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the orders of the lower fora.

11.    It is apparent that the petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the very same grounds which were raised before the District Forum as well as the State Commission in appeal. The concurrent findings on facts of these two foras are based on evidences led by the parties and documents on record. The present revision petition is therefore an attempt by the petitioner to urge this Commission to re-assess, re-appreciate the evidence which cannot be done in revisional jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show that the findings in the impugned order are perverse.  

12.    This Commission, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, is not required to re-assess and re-appreciate the evidence on record when the findings of the lower fora are concurrent on facts. It can interfere with the concurrent findings of the fora below only on the grounds that the findings are either perverse or that the fora below have acted without jurisdiction. Findings can be concluded to be perverse only when they are based on either evidence that have not been produced or based on conjecture or surmises i.e. evidence which are either not part of the record or when material evidence on record is not considered. The power of this Commission to review under section 21 of the Act is therefore, limited to cases where some prima facie error appears in the impugned order. Different interpretation of same sets of facts has been held to be not permissible by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

13.   The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta (2011) 11 SCC 269 dated 18.03.2011 has held that:

23. Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two Fora.

14.    Reiterating this principle, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors vs H & R Johnson (India) Ltd., and Ors  (2016) 8 SCC 286 dated 02.08.2016 held:

17. The National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has either failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in them or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reasons.

15.   The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 05.04.2019 in the case of T Ramalingeswara Rao (Dead) Through LRs & Ors Vs. N Madhava Rao and Ors, Civil Appeal No. 3408 of 2019 dated 05.04.2019 held as under:

12. When the two Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact against the Plaintiffs, which are based on appreciation of facts and evidence, in our view, such findings being concurrent in nature are binding on the High court. It is only when such findings are found to be against any provision of law or against the pleading or evidence or are found to be perverse, a case for interference may call for by the High Court in its second appellate jurisdiction.

16.    The foras below have pronounced orders which are detailed and have dealt with all the contentions of the petitioner which have been raised before me in this revision petition. It is also seen that the orders of these fora are based on evidence on record.  In view of the settled proposition of law that where two interpretations of evidence are possible, concurrent findings based on evidence have to be accepted and such findings cannot be substituted in revisional jurisdiction, this petition is liable to fail.

17.   I, therefore, find no illegality or infirmity or perversity in the impugned order warranting any interference of this Commission. The present revision petition is, therefore, found to be without merits and is accordingly dismissed. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of with this order.